Much of school reform is focused on “fixing” broken schools. While it is very necessary to improve education for low-income students, the country is missing an opportunity to address inequality through education of elite students. As Ravitch wrote, "Poverty persists not because schools are bad and teachers don't care but because society neglects its root causes. Concentrated poverty and racial segregation are social problems, not school problems." (2013, p. 224) Therefore, in order to address these social problems we must work to better educate students who are born with power and prestige to help be part of a solution rather than the problem. Different independent schools have different levels of social justice and empathy curriculums, but many could make lasting impacts on inequality in the U.S. Some independent schools have embraced curriculum changes in order to better educate their students to work towards social justice, while other schools are still very traditional in their continuation of elite education. Below I examine five articles that attempt to answer the question “how can elite schools educate students in order to decrease inequality in the U.S.?” The annotated bibliography below includes a summary and response to each article. There are also some recommended further readings related to the topic listed below the bibliography. Following the sources is a conclusion that emphasizes the relevance of these issues and summarizes the results.
Annotated Bibliography:
Swalwell, K. (2013). “With Great Power Comes Great Responsibility”: Privileged Students’ Conceptions of Justice-Oriented Citizenship. Democracy and Education, 21 (1), Article 5. Available at: http://democracyeducationjournal.org/home/vol21/iss1/5
Summary: Katy Swalwell discusses the complexity of social justice curriculum within elite schools. She claims that schools in “marginalized communities” need attention, but that elite children “are likely to have access to a disproportionate amount of political, social, and economic power,” (2013, p. 2) and educational reform should also look at how to best teach social justice. Swalwell argues for “schooling that is intended to disrupt cycles of inequality by educating privileged students to be justice-oriented citizens… Teachers with this goal hope to interrupt the trajectory of widening wealth inequality and racial segregation by engaging students in social justice pedagogy.” (2013, p. 2) Swalwell reviews previous literature that has argued that teachers efforts to teach social justice backfire, and articulates that student reaction and behavior is more complex when examined closely than a simple “backfire”. It is true that when learning about privilege, sometimes students use it to become more marketable rather than to truly reflect (college essay, community service hours for resume). It is also true privileged students may feel angry or confused rather than empowered when learning about oppression and privilege. In addition, social norms sometimes push back (parents, communities) and so personally responsible forms of social justice are “safer”.
In Swalwell’s case study she examined a semester social studies course at Kent Academy, an independent school who highlights democracy, multiculturalism and social justice in their mission. Swalwell found that students agreed with “justice-oriented citizenship” but that it meant different things to different students. Swalwell classifies these differences as four identities: the Meritocratic, the Benevolent Benefactor, the Resigned, and the Activist Ally. The Meritocratic believes that anything unjust in the world is because of bad people acting poorly and oppressing people. They believe that people need to take responsibility for their own lives, and that privilege isn’t negative but needs to be used responsibly. The Resigned understand the “systematic nature of oppression” and feel hopeless. The most common identity Swalwell found was the Benevolent Benefactor who doesn’t recognize systematic oppression, but argues that life is about luck. Within this realm, privileged people are disconnected with oppression or suffering of others. They believe that being grateful and volunteering is good and think that individual kindness towards others will help the world. The goal of social justice education is to help students understand and identify with the Activist Ally identity: “Their privilege, in continual social construction by the complex interaction between structural forces and individual acts, is thus seen as a set of resources to be mobilized in concert with the oppressed for the purposes of mutual transformation and societal improvement.”(2001, p. 6)
Swalwell found that many times the school and teacher’s goals were “only superficially achieved,” and that more students identified with Benevolent Benefactor than any other identity. She argues that social justice curriculum is not backfiring, and that there are ways to further improve. She outlines potential solutions including investing more resources in diversifying the student body, structuring the curriculum to show ideological inconsistencies with justice-oriented citizenship and to be more explicit about ideologies that do not align with justice. She also advocates for opportunities for students to “deeply listen” to people with different background and connect to own experience and larger system of oppression to these individual connections. Finally, Swalwell points out that it is okay that students take away differing concepts. “Social justice educators would be wise to explicitly engage students in discussions about these different strategies while simultaneously engaging them in a critique of the logic of privilege.” (2013, p. 9) In sum, current social justice curriculum within elite schools is a good start to help address issues of oppression and inequality in the world, and that further attention needs to be paid to effective ways to help students more fully engage with the Activist Ally identity.
My Reaction:
Swalwell examines one of the more challenging elements of teaching social justice in elite schools, and as I read her article I could think of many students from my own experience that fell into each category she outlined. I agree with her that the mixed reactions to social justice pedagogy should not deter teachers from engaging in these issues with students. As an educator, I intend to incorporate her advise in the classroom and provide more opportunities to examine the different reactions student have to learning about privilege. I would have liked to see a comparison study of the Kent School with another elite institution that does not have a social justice curriculum to see how the results differ. Overall I found Swalwell’s analysis insightful and helpful to me as an educator committed to helping elite students understand social justice and oppression.
Gaztambide-Fernandez, R.A. & Howard, A. (2013). Social Justice, Deferred Complicity, and the Moral Plight of the Wealthy. Democracy & Education, 21 (1). Available online at http://democracyeducationjournal.org/home/vol21/iss1/8.
Summary:
Ruben Gaztambide-Fernandez and Adam Howard are well known for their academic analysis of elite education. In this article, they respond to Swalwell’s article that is summarized above. They critique some of the underlying assumptions and themes in Swalwell’s piece, but still argue for genuine social justice education. Their main critique is that often social-justice education allows elite students to benefit from the image created of a wealthy privileged person “helping.” They point out that the image of elites is crucial to understanding the role of social-justice elite education. "In so-called capitalist democracies like the United States, a commitment to the improvement of the lives of the disadvantaged-at least in rhetoric-is crucial to the public image of economically privileged groups." (p. 2) Gaztambide-Fernandez and Howard critique Swalwell and claim that she assumes that to be justice oriented people must be "good." "What stands out from the data presented is the students' concern with presenting themselves as good people with good moral character." (p. 2)
Ruben Gaztambige-Fernandez and Adam Howard have examined elite education previously, and showed that "what motivates privileged adolescents to engage in benevolent acts, especially community service activities, is the ability to present themselves to others as caring, engaged, and generous." (p. 2) Benevolent acts help elite appear in a certain light, while also ensuring their advantages. Their critique of Swalwell is that "particularly in the context of an elite school committed to social justice, the suffering of the poor becomes the fodder through which these students enact a sense of moral standing." (p. 2) They look at the four identities that Swalwell has described and analyze how the implicit sense of superiority of elite plays into each circumstance. In addition, the morality that elites gain is afforded to them based on how they interact with "less fortunate" which inevitably means that "less fortunate" cannot possibly achieve this same level of moral standing. "The school, and its students, builds an identification as a 'good school' and as 'good citizens' on the backs of the very people whole lives they presumably want to change but without whom they would have no referent for self-definition." (p. 3). They argue that social justice education is only "diverting attention away from the power of dominant groups and convincing subordinates that they are concerned for others and are compassionate, kind, and giving." (p. 3) Their analysis critiques social-justice education based on the premise that in many ways it benefits the elite who already have sufficient privilege in today’s society.
My Reaction:
Gaztambige-Fernandez and Adam Howard bring up an interesting critique of Swalwell’s work, but without sufficient suggestions for solutions. While I agree with their perspective that many elite students use concepts of privilege and social justice as a talking point in college essays and job interviews to achieve personal gains, I still believe that it is imperative to include in any curriculum that aims to understand power structures and oppression. While I agree with their criticism of Swalwell to some extent, I believe that she did not aim to disregard this element of social justice education and even highlighted it in her introduction. Gaztambige-Fernandez and Howard left the reader with less constructive advice on how to work towards solutions for the inequity of the United States, and more helpless feelings in regards to privilege and power.
Summary: In this article the author highlights the new element of Harvard’s Kennedy School Orientation. Harvard will begin including discussions of privilege and social structures in their orientation in an effort to help better prepare Harvard students for their role in the world. The article articulates some objections to such curriculum, including resistance because of the misunderstood notion that such curriculum leads itself to making privileged people feel guilty for their status. In addition, they highlight the importance of such curriculum in elite schools. Harvard replied to the original article to add that the orientation is important because, “learning to have constructive conversations in the context of differences in race, gender, cultural background, political viewpoints and many other perspectives is important in any graduate school, particularly one dedicated to preparing its students to be effective leaders and policymakers.” In essence, Harvard is aiming to better equip students for leadership through helping them discuss issues of race and privilege.
My Reaction: This article supports the trend among elite educational institutions to include curriculum of privilege to the table. However, the aim of this program is not to achieve social justice or to create Activist Allies. It is clear that Harvard is hoping to better prepare its students, and that currently that includes being able to discuss challenging issues of race and class. In this sense the article directly supports Gaztambige-Fernandez and Adam Howard’s critique of such curriculum. Harvard’s orientation may appear to help “check privilege,” but with the direct goal to help its students appear well versed in such dialogue and to further help an elite group of students.
In this article from Teaching Tolerance, Swalwell looks at two different case studies of teachers addressing white privilege. She outlines the common understanding that low-income schools often receive attention on how to improve in order to reach the levels of more elite schools. As she says, “however, not investigating the educational experiences of white, affluent students wrongly frames them as the successful norm to which others are compared.” (p. 24) In other words, education of affluent students must be examined critically as well in order to better address issues of inequality in education. She points out that it is important to provide multicultural education for democracy, and that teachers use different methods to achieve multicultural education.
Teacher Vernon Sloan uses the method he calls “Bursting the Bubble” in his school of mostly white and upper-middle class school living in a “bubble”. Sloan talks about his privilege, and asks students to explore privilege in their own family and lives. He uses field trips and student exchange with majority black school in order to burst the bubble. The drawback of this method is that it sometimes reinforced and romanticized stereotypes and students elected to pursue charity work rather then address systemic change. Swalwell also describes Liz Johnson’s method of “Disturbing the Comfortable.” Johnson works in an elite private academy with direct mission for “justice-oriented citizens in a multicultural democracy.” In her classroom, she emphasized injustices with sources and documentation through an academic framework. Students were well versed in discussing inequality and issues of social-justice, but sometimes only superficially to serve their own ends. Both methods have potential drawbacks, but Swalwell highlights the importance of such education in order to move towards a more equitable democracy. As Swalwell concludes, “Students who see themselves living in a bubble may need to have that bubble burst; students who are confident cosmopolitans may need to have their comfort disturbed.” (p. 26)
My Response:
This article from Teaching Tolerance, examines two very different methods of teaching about white privilege. In both cases teachers saw success and failures with helping their students engage deeply about such issues. I found this helpful when considering how to teach in a similar setting in which there is clear “right way” to help students understand their privilege. While “bursting the bubble” and “disturbing the comfortable” are both positive notions on the surface, it is important to understand the unintended consequences that can occur. Teachers with very good intentions may end up furthering the attitude of privilege of some students who see such activities merely as ways to get further in their own lives. I agree with Swalwell that educators cannot let these potential drawbacks defer them from attempting to address such complex issues with elite students.
Summary: In this article Tim Wise and Greg Blackburn answer questions that are frequently asked about white privilege and the controversial idea of teaching about such privilege in independent schools. They highlight that teaching about white privilege is not meant to blame or criticize people, but rather necessary to understand racial inequality. They state clearly that, “independent schools are often rooted in a history of racism and white privilege.”(2009, p. 2) Wise and Blackburn explore the history of independent schools and recent buzzwords of diversity and multicultural education. It is their belief that independent schools have a long history of exclusion and there is still a lot of work to be done to become more inclusive. They also point out that with curricula even with immense changes recently, most material in independent schools is still mostly Euro-centric. Wise and Blackburn contest that independent schools need to continue to focus on diversifying their student population, boards and staff as well as their curriculum. They also argue that educating students on issues of white privilege is not only crucial to addressing the inequities of the world, but also to help children succeed in the world around them.
My Response:
This article from the National Association of Independent Schools was interesting on a number of levels. Wise and Blackburn directly address some of the cultural constructions within the Independent School world about race and privilege. I agree with their arguments, but was also disheartened at the need to make them. This article is important for the Independent School community to consider as issues of “diversity” are often viewed with mixed feelings within the culture. I have used Tim Wise’s work in class before to help students understand what white privilege and the power structures of the United States are without having students feel guilty about their power in society. Race and power are challenging topics to discuss within the Independent School world where exclusion was in many ways the goal of the schools’ earlier days. This article helped bring to the front of the field some of the misconceptions and understandings of teaching about privilege.
Further Readings:
Bartels, F. (Fall 2012) Our 1% Problem: Independent Schools and the Income Gap. Independent School Magazine.http://www.nais.org/Magazines-Newsletters/ISMagazine/Pages/Our-1-Percent-Problem.aspx In this article Fred Bartels examines the growing inequality in the United States in relation with Independent Schools. He argues that despite many great efforts among independent schools that they are contributing more to inequality and making the situation worse in the United States.
Morrell, M. E. (2007). Empathy and Democratic Education. Public Affairs Quarterly, 21(4), 381–403. In this article Michael Morell examines empathy training in education. He argues that empathy training should be a part of democratic education and that empathy is a direct indicator to healthy democracy.
Westheimer, J., & Kahne, J. (2004). Educating the “Good” Citizen: Political Choices and Pedagogical Goals. PS: Political Science and Politics, 37(2), 241–247. Westheimer and Kahne analyze the differing opinions on what good citizenship involves and how that challenges educational goals. They classify three “kinds of citizens”: Personally Responsible Citizen; Participatory Citizen; and Justice-oriented citizen and explore how education plays a role in forming each classification.
Summary of Results and Relevance:
Independent Schools serve an elite portion of the U.S. and have the opportunity to change the power structure over time. Although some authors would argue that the existence of private schools in and of itself counteracts any efforts to teach social justice, most authors agree that through diversifying student populations, emphasizing empathy and social justice, and providing authentic opportunities for reflection, students are more likely to understand oppression and injustice. There is consensus in the literature that the potential negative affects of social justice education with elite students include an inauthentic rhetoric around privilege, and a capitalization on marginalized communities in order to explore their own privilege. In general, it is important to understand the varying experiences of social justice within such elite institutions and work to help students and faculty better understand the hidden biases of said institutions.
Much of school reform is focused on “fixing” broken schools. While it is very necessary to improve education for low-income students, the country is missing an opportunity to address inequality through education of elite students. As Ravitch wrote, "Poverty persists not because schools are bad and teachers don't care but because society neglects its root causes. Concentrated poverty and racial segregation are social problems, not school problems." (2013, p. 224) Therefore, in order to address these social problems we must work to better educate students who are born with power and prestige to help be part of a solution rather than the problem. Different independent schools have different levels of social justice and empathy curriculums, but many could make lasting impacts on inequality in the U.S. Some independent schools have embraced curriculum changes in order to better educate their students to work towards social justice, while other schools are still very traditional in their continuation of elite education. Below I examine five articles that attempt to answer the question “how can elite schools educate students in order to decrease inequality in the U.S.?” The annotated bibliography below includes a summary and response to each article. There are also some recommended further readings related to the topic listed below the bibliography. Following the sources is a conclusion that emphasizes the relevance of these issues and summarizes the results.
Annotated Bibliography:
Swalwell, K. (2013). “With Great Power Comes Great Responsibility”: Privileged Students’ Conceptions of Justice-Oriented Citizenship. Democracy and Education, 21 (1), Article 5. Available at: http://democracyeducationjournal.org/home/vol21/iss1/5
Summary:
Katy Swalwell discusses the complexity of social justice curriculum within elite schools. She claims that schools in “marginalized communities” need attention, but that elite children “are likely to have access to a disproportionate amount of political, social, and economic power,” (2013, p. 2) and educational reform should also look at how to best teach social justice. Swalwell argues for “schooling that is intended to disrupt cycles of inequality by educating privileged students to be justice-oriented citizens… Teachers with this goal hope to interrupt the trajectory of widening wealth inequality and racial segregation by engaging students in social justice pedagogy.” (2013, p. 2) Swalwell reviews previous literature that has argued that teachers efforts to teach social justice backfire, and articulates that student reaction and behavior is more complex when examined closely than a simple “backfire”. It is true that when learning about privilege, sometimes students use it to become more marketable rather than to truly reflect (college essay, community service hours for resume). It is also true privileged students may feel angry or confused rather than empowered when learning about oppression and privilege. In addition, social norms sometimes push back (parents, communities) and so personally responsible forms of social justice are “safer”.
In Swalwell’s case study she examined a semester social studies course at Kent Academy, an independent school who highlights democracy, multiculturalism and social justice in their mission. Swalwell found that students agreed with “justice-oriented citizenship” but that it meant different things to different students. Swalwell classifies these differences as four identities: the Meritocratic, the Benevolent Benefactor, the Resigned, and the Activist Ally. The Meritocratic believes that anything unjust in the world is because of bad people acting poorly and oppressing people. They believe that people need to take responsibility for their own lives, and that privilege isn’t negative but needs to be used responsibly. The Resigned understand the “systematic nature of oppression” and feel hopeless. The most common identity Swalwell found was the Benevolent Benefactor who doesn’t recognize systematic oppression, but argues that life is about luck. Within this realm, privileged people are disconnected with oppression or suffering of others. They believe that being grateful and volunteering is good and think that individual kindness towards others will help the world. The goal of social justice education is to help students understand and identify with the Activist Ally identity: “Their privilege, in continual social construction by the complex interaction between structural forces and individual acts, is thus seen as a set of resources to be mobilized in concert with the oppressed for the purposes of mutual transformation and societal improvement.”(2001, p. 6)
Swalwell found that many times the school and teacher’s goals were “only superficially achieved,” and that more students identified with Benevolent Benefactor than any other identity. She argues that social justice curriculum is not backfiring, and that there are ways to further improve. She outlines potential solutions including investing more resources in diversifying the student body, structuring the curriculum to show ideological inconsistencies with justice-oriented citizenship and to be more explicit about ideologies that do not align with justice. She also advocates for opportunities for students to “deeply listen” to people with different background and connect to own experience and larger system of oppression to these individual connections. Finally, Swalwell points out that it is okay that students take away differing concepts. “Social justice educators would be wise to explicitly engage students in discussions about these different strategies while simultaneously engaging them in a critique of the logic of privilege.” (2013, p. 9) In sum, current social justice curriculum within elite schools is a good start to help address issues of oppression and inequality in the world, and that further attention needs to be paid to effective ways to help students more fully engage with the Activist Ally identity.
My Reaction:
Swalwell examines one of the more challenging elements of teaching social justice in elite schools, and as I read her article I could think of many students from my own experience that fell into each category she outlined. I agree with her that the mixed reactions to social justice pedagogy should not deter teachers from engaging in these issues with students. As an educator, I intend to incorporate her advise in the classroom and provide more opportunities to examine the different reactions student have to learning about privilege. I would have liked to see a comparison study of the Kent School with another elite institution that does not have a social justice curriculum to see how the results differ. Overall I found Swalwell’s analysis insightful and helpful to me as an educator committed to helping elite students understand social justice and oppression.
Gaztambide-Fernandez, R.A. & Howard, A. (2013). Social Justice, Deferred Complicity, and the Moral Plight of the Wealthy. Democracy & Education, 21 (1). Available online at http://democracyeducationjournal.org/home/vol21/iss1/8.
Summary:
Ruben Gaztambide-Fernandez and Adam Howard are well known for their academic analysis of elite education. In this article, they respond to Swalwell’s article that is summarized above. They critique some of the underlying assumptions and themes in Swalwell’s piece, but still argue for genuine social justice education. Their main critique is that often social-justice education allows elite students to benefit from the image created of a wealthy privileged person “helping.” They point out that the image of elites is crucial to understanding the role of social-justice elite education. "In so-called capitalist democracies like the United States, a commitment to the improvement of the lives of the disadvantaged-at least in rhetoric-is crucial to the public image of economically privileged groups." (p. 2) Gaztambide-Fernandez and Howard critique Swalwell and claim that she assumes that to be justice oriented people must be "good." "What stands out from the data presented is the students' concern with presenting themselves as good people with good moral character." (p. 2)
Ruben Gaztambige-Fernandez and Adam Howard have examined elite education previously, and showed that "what motivates privileged adolescents to engage in benevolent acts, especially community service activities, is the ability to present themselves to others as caring, engaged, and generous." (p. 2) Benevolent acts help elite appear in a certain light, while also ensuring their advantages. Their critique of Swalwell is that "particularly in the context of an elite school committed to social justice, the suffering of the poor becomes the fodder through which these students enact a sense of moral standing." (p. 2) They look at the four identities that Swalwell has described and analyze how the implicit sense of superiority of elite plays into each circumstance. In addition, the morality that elites gain is afforded to them based on how they interact with "less fortunate" which inevitably means that "less fortunate" cannot possibly achieve this same level of moral standing. "The school, and its students, builds an identification as a 'good school' and as 'good citizens' on the backs of the very people whole lives they presumably want to change but without whom they would have no referent for self-definition." (p. 3). They argue that social justice education is only "diverting attention away from the power of dominant groups and convincing subordinates that they are concerned for others and are compassionate, kind, and giving." (p. 3) Their analysis critiques social-justice education based on the premise that in many ways it benefits the elite who already have sufficient privilege in today’s society.
My Reaction:
Gaztambige-Fernandez and Adam Howard bring up an interesting critique of Swalwell’s work, but without sufficient suggestions for solutions. While I agree with their perspective that many elite students use concepts of privilege and social justice as a talking point in college essays and job interviews to achieve personal gains, I still believe that it is imperative to include in any curriculum that aims to understand power structures and oppression. While I agree with their criticism of Swalwell to some extent, I believe that she did not aim to disregard this element of social justice education and even highlighted it in her introduction. Gaztambige-Fernandez and Howard left the reader with less constructive advice on how to work towards solutions for the inequity of the United States, and more helpless feelings in regards to privilege and power.
Harvard’s Kennedy School Adds Privilege-Checking to New-Student Orientation [Updated]. (n.d.). The Cut. Retrieved July 20, 2014, from http://nymag.com/thecut/2014/05/harvard-adds-privilege-checking-to-orientation.html
Summary:
In this article the author highlights the new element of Harvard’s Kennedy School Orientation. Harvard will begin including discussions of privilege and social structures in their orientation in an effort to help better prepare Harvard students for their role in the world. The article articulates some objections to such curriculum, including resistance because of the misunderstood notion that such curriculum leads itself to making privileged people feel guilty for their status. In addition, they highlight the importance of such curriculum in elite schools. Harvard replied to the original article to add that the orientation is important because, “learning to have constructive conversations in the context of differences in race, gender, cultural background, political viewpoints and many other perspectives is important in any graduate school, particularly one dedicated to preparing its students to be effective leaders and policymakers.” In essence, Harvard is aiming to better equip students for leadership through helping them discuss issues of race and privilege.
My Reaction:
This article supports the trend among elite educational institutions to include curriculum of privilege to the table. However, the aim of this program is not to achieve social justice or to create Activist Allies. It is clear that Harvard is hoping to better prepare its students, and that currently that includes being able to discuss challenging issues of race and class. In this sense the article directly supports Gaztambige-Fernandez and Adam Howard’s critique of such curriculum. Harvard’s orientation may appear to help “check privilege,” but with the direct goal to help its students appear well versed in such dialogue and to further help an elite group of students.
Swalwell, K. Confronting White Privilege. Teaching Tolerance (No 42, Fall 2012)
http://www.tolerance.org/magazine/number-42-fall-2012/feature/confronting-white-privilege
Summary:
In this article from Teaching Tolerance, Swalwell looks at two different case studies of teachers addressing white privilege. She outlines the common understanding that low-income schools often receive attention on how to improve in order to reach the levels of more elite schools. As she says, “however, not investigating the educational experiences of white, affluent students wrongly frames them as the successful norm to which others are compared.” (p. 24) In other words, education of affluent students must be examined critically as well in order to better address issues of inequality in education. She points out that it is important to provide multicultural education for democracy, and that teachers use different methods to achieve multicultural education.
Teacher Vernon Sloan uses the method he calls “Bursting the Bubble” in his school of mostly white and upper-middle class school living in a “bubble”. Sloan talks about his privilege, and asks students to explore privilege in their own family and lives. He uses field trips and student exchange with majority black school in order to burst the bubble. The drawback of this method is that it sometimes reinforced and romanticized stereotypes and students elected to pursue charity work rather then address systemic change. Swalwell also describes Liz Johnson’s method of “Disturbing the Comfortable.” Johnson works in an elite private academy with direct mission for “justice-oriented citizens in a multicultural democracy.” In her classroom, she emphasized injustices with sources and documentation through an academic framework. Students were well versed in discussing inequality and issues of social-justice, but sometimes only superficially to serve their own ends. Both methods have potential drawbacks, but Swalwell highlights the importance of such education in order to move towards a more equitable democracy. As Swalwell concludes, “Students who see themselves living in a bubble may need to have that bubble burst; students who are confident cosmopolitans may need to have their comfort disturbed.” (p. 26)
My Response:
This article from Teaching Tolerance, examines two very different methods of teaching about white privilege. In both cases teachers saw success and failures with helping their students engage deeply about such issues. I found this helpful when considering how to teach in a similar setting in which there is clear “right way” to help students understand their privilege. While “bursting the bubble” and “disturbing the comfortable” are both positive notions on the surface, it is important to understand the unintended consequences that can occur. Teachers with very good intentions may end up furthering the attitude of privilege of some students who see such activities merely as ways to get further in their own lives. I agree with Swalwell that educators cannot let these potential drawbacks defer them from attempting to address such complex issues with elite students.
Blackburn, G & Wise, T., (Spring, 2009). Addressing White Privilege in Independent Schools: Frequently Asked Questions (and Their Answers). Independent School Magazine. Retrieved July 19, 2014, from http://www.nais.org/Magazines-Newsletters/ISMagazine/Pages/Addressing-White-Privilege-in-Independent-Schools.aspx#sthash.i6S1zFa7.dpuf
Summary:
In this article Tim Wise and Greg Blackburn answer questions that are frequently asked about white privilege and the controversial idea of teaching about such privilege in independent schools. They highlight that teaching about white privilege is not meant to blame or criticize people, but rather necessary to understand racial inequality. They state clearly that, “independent schools are often rooted in a history of racism and white privilege.”(2009, p. 2) Wise and Blackburn explore the history of independent schools and recent buzzwords of diversity and multicultural education. It is their belief that independent schools have a long history of exclusion and there is still a lot of work to be done to become more inclusive. They also point out that with curricula even with immense changes recently, most material in independent schools is still mostly Euro-centric. Wise and Blackburn contest that independent schools need to continue to focus on diversifying their student population, boards and staff as well as their curriculum. They also argue that educating students on issues of white privilege is not only crucial to addressing the inequities of the world, but also to help children succeed in the world around them.
My Response:
This article from the National Association of Independent Schools was interesting on a number of levels. Wise and Blackburn directly address some of the cultural constructions within the Independent School world about race and privilege. I agree with their arguments, but was also disheartened at the need to make them. This article is important for the Independent School community to consider as issues of “diversity” are often viewed with mixed feelings within the culture. I have used Tim Wise’s work in class before to help students understand what white privilege and the power structures of the United States are without having students feel guilty about their power in society. Race and power are challenging topics to discuss within the Independent School world where exclusion was in many ways the goal of the schools’ earlier days. This article helped bring to the front of the field some of the misconceptions and understandings of teaching about privilege.
Further Readings:
Bartels, F. (Fall 2012) Our 1% Problem: Independent Schools and the Income Gap. Independent School Magazine. http://www.nais.org/Magazines-Newsletters/ISMagazine/Pages/Our-1-Percent-Problem.aspx
In this article Fred Bartels examines the growing inequality in the United States in relation with Independent Schools. He argues that despite many great efforts among independent schools that they are contributing more to inequality and making the situation worse in the United States.
Morrell, M. E. (2007). Empathy and Democratic Education. Public Affairs Quarterly, 21(4), 381–403.
In this article Michael Morell examines empathy training in education. He argues that empathy training should be a part of democratic education and that empathy is a direct indicator to healthy democracy.
Westheimer, J., & Kahne, J. (2004). Educating the “Good” Citizen: Political Choices and Pedagogical Goals. PS: Political Science and Politics, 37(2), 241–247.
Westheimer and Kahne analyze the differing opinions on what good citizenship involves and how that challenges educational goals. They classify three “kinds of citizens”: Personally Responsible Citizen; Participatory Citizen; and Justice-oriented citizen and explore how education plays a role in forming each classification.
Summary of Results and Relevance:
Independent Schools serve an elite portion of the U.S. and have the opportunity to change the power structure over time. Although some authors would argue that the existence of private schools in and of itself counteracts any efforts to teach social justice, most authors agree that through diversifying student populations, emphasizing empathy and social justice, and providing authentic opportunities for reflection, students are more likely to understand oppression and injustice. There is consensus in the literature that the potential negative affects of social justice education with elite students include an inauthentic rhetoric around privilege, and a capitalization on marginalized communities in order to explore their own privilege. In general, it is important to understand the varying experiences of social justice within such elite institutions and work to help students and faculty better understand the hidden biases of said institutions.